Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3668 (MAD)

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. MINOR AKBAR

2018-10-09

V.M.VELUMANI

body2018
JUDGMENT V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order and decree dated 30.01.2009 passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.28 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal /Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi. 2. The appellant / Insurance Company is the 2nd respondent in the claim petition. The first respondent herein filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 20.12.2006, caused by the driver of the second respondent. Appellant is the insurer of the vehicle of second respondent. 3. The appellant/second respondent denied all the averments in the claim petition and contended that the second respondent had only to ply the lorry in the State of Kerala and he has no permit to ply lorry in the State of Tamil Nadu. The accident occurred at Tenkasi and the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation, in view of violation of policy condition. 4. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the second respondent and considering the nature of injuries, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,02,500/- as compensation. 5. Challenging the said Award, the appellant has come out with the present appeal. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials available on record. Though the first respondent entered appearance through counsel, there is no representation. This Court dismissed the appeal against the second respondent by order dated 29.11.2017. 7. The learned appearing for the appellant contended that the driver of the second respondent did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The appellant filed a review petition to review the award and the same was returned on the ground that remedy to the appellant is only to file an appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further contended that the second respondent in violation of permit condition was plying his lorry within the State of Tamil Nadu and driver of the lorry did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the view that both the grounds are unacceptable. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the view that both the grounds are unacceptable. The appellant has not let in any evidence to substantiate this contention that the second respondent had permit only to ply in the State of Kerala. No oral or documentary evidence was let in by the appellant to substantiate their case that there was no valid permit and the driver did not possess a valid driving licence. For the above said reasons, there is no error in the award of Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, by confirming the Award and Decree dated 30.01.2009 made in M.A.C.O.P.No.28 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal /Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.